M.Somasundaram vs State

G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J

Seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Thothukudi, vide Judgment dated 05.04.2025 in S.C.No.223 of 2026, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed.

The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced as under:

Section of Law

Sentence of imprisonment

Fine amount

302 of IPC

Life Imprisonment

Rs.10,000/- i/d to undergo three months Rigorous imprisonment

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a change in circumstances and that the petitioner has filed a second application seeking suspension of sentence. It is further submitted that Accused No.11, who stands on the same footing as the petitioner (arrayed as A1), had earlier filed an application for suspension of sentence before this Court, which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred a Special Leave Petition in S.L.P. No.15596 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the same was allowed by order dated 27.11.2025. The relevant portions of the said order are extracted hereunder:

“14. Prima facie, we are of the view that the oral evidence of the PW 4 and the PW 5 respectively is in direct conflict on material aspects with the evidence of the PW 2. Of course, this is a prima facie observation and all relevant aspects would be looked into by the High Court while hearing the Criminal Appeal. Any further observation on merits may perhaps cause prejudice to either side.

We take notice of the fact that the conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the oral testimony of PW 2, the wife of the deceased.

The law is well settled. Conviction can be based on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness provided it is found to be wholly reliable. If it is found to be wholly unreliable, then there is no problem in discarding the entire evidence. There could be a third category wherein the Court may find the evidence of a solitary eye-witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and in such a situation, the Court must insist for corroboration in material particulars. We tried exactly to do the same thing by cursorily looking into the evidence of the PW 4 and the PW 5 respectively. Prima facie, the oral evidence does not inspire confidence.”

In view of the above, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case and we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone imposed on the petitioner herein is suspended, subject to the following conditions:

i. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Thothukudi.

ii. The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank passbook to ensure their identity.

iii. The petitioner shall appear and sign before the trial Court at 10.30 a.m., on the first working day of every English calender month, till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal.